How long would it take for Anarchy to start working?

[kuroman]

to start anarchy, you need a major factor that makes people emotional, fear is what works best nowadays, and guiding people to revolutions and anarchies is the new favorite game of some, as for total anarchy that would require cutting fundamentals and fundamentals needs to a vast majority, but sadly order will come back sooner or later as it is related to the "animal" part of us we humans by nature socialize and by this same nature we tend to have hierarchy in our groups

[deisik]

So, your point is, hierarchical societies have advantages over anarchical ones, so that even if we started with an unconstrained non-hierarchical society, it would eventually turn to a hierarchical one; now, to account for this, you only mentioned the fact that hierarchical societies exist and that there are no large scale, technologically advanced anarchical societies to speak off at this point in time - an advantage in itself, of course. I'll try and address this point then, but feel free to detail other advantages you feel they might have

Yes, the fact that only hierarchical societies exist still remains a fact, but as I said I don't try to clinch to it but rather look for the reasons behind in an effort to explain why this is so. And, to tell the truth, you didn't address this issue (at least, not in the way how I would like to see it addressed). What you said later can be reduced to just saying that in due course something might happen that will change the current situation (or might not, lol)...

In short, you didn't provide the logic that would make the change you hope for inevitable (or at least feasible) and the facts are on my side even if you don't see the fatal logic behind them!

[Trading]

Studies suggest that paleolithic, and even the societies of the first part of the neolithic, before the first accumulation of wealth, were egalitarian societies, probably without power structures. Even the existence of a leader isn't clear. We can't find on their homes or burials any signs of power or difference of status.

So, the question isn't if we have a hierarchic nature, in the sense that we can only live in power structured societies.

The question is if a complex, urban society, where people trade daily with other people they don't know, could functioned without power. It would be great, but I don't think so.

[acs267]

I think it depends on where you live. I think it'd have less of a startup in a rural area, but more so in a urban area.

[arbitrage001]

Anarchy does not work. People are opportunistic in nature.

People think current government is bad, but it takes many years of bad practice, corruption and general misinformed voters to get to this level.



Government is needed to enforce basic individual right and do so using law and gun with the consensus of the population.

[Bogleg]

Society function the way body does.

Need the body and the brain (government).

[Nik1ab]

Anarchy does not work. People are opportunistic in nature.

People think current government is bad, but it takes many years of bad practice, corruption and general misinformed voters to get to this level.



Government is needed to enforce basic individual right and do so using law and gun with the consensus of the population.

Governments don't enforce rights, they only enforce slavery.

[deisik]

I understand that some people do hate coercion (I do) and, therefore, they see the government as the big leviathan like Hobbes (I don't).

But in a society with no central coercer controlled by the people, the big fishes would occupy the vacuum of power and assume it. We would end in a return to feudalism

No, we won't return to feudalism. The big fishes are already behind the state and controlling it... But you could always try to substitute the old ones with the new (at least theoretically). Feudalism or capitalism is determined by how technologically developed a society is... 

[Trading]

Of course, big fish have much more power than the averaged citizen, even in a Democracy.

But in democracy, they can't kill you or take your freedom or goods as easily as in a feudalistic system. Without a central power, we would end in that soon.

[deisik]

Of course, big fish have much more power than the averaged citizen, even in a Democracy.

But in democracy, they can't kill you or take your freedom or goods as easily as in a feudalistic system. Without a central power, we would end in that soon.

You seem to have missed my point entirely. I don't deny that they (big fish) can easily take your freedom or goods (or even life for that matter) in a feudalistic system. But the power vacuum will be over pretty soon (provided there is no central power in the first place), some gang will ultimately take over and subdue other gangs. And if the society manages to keep its technological development, we will have the system not much different from what we have now (since it is most efficient from an economical point of view as of today)...

[Trading]

If I understood correctly, your point was that in current Democracy, the big fish already rule. I answered that, even so, they have much less power than they would have in an anarchic society, that you seem to be defending.

If you write that the power vacuum would end by some group taking power, well, that is feudalism.

But I'm really missing your point on how technology will save us from feudalism.

[Mike Christ]

You seem to have missed my point entirely. I don't deny that they (big fish) can easily take your freedom or goods (or even life for that matter) in a feudalistic system. But the power vacuum will be over pretty soon (provided there is no central power in the first place), some gang will ultimately take over and subdue other gangs. And if the society manages to keep its technological development, we will have the system not much different from what we have now (since it is most efficient from an economical point of view as of today)...

If that dominant gang is a bunch of libertarians/anarchists whose beliefs overpower the beliefs of those who dominate through force and fear, you will have a far different system.  The vacuum of power is subsumed by a series of self-sovereign individuals, rather than a small minority of sociopaths brought into power by a majority of violent religious nutbags (i.e. not libertarians/anarchists) who think society could never work without coercion.

The reason why society appears to always resort to forced hierarchy is that you always use the same people of today in this future society, making it appear utopian no matter what changes are made; if you have a vanilla-chocolate swirl , but scrap it and make yourself another frozen yogurt with the same flavors, how many times would it take until you get strawberry-sherbet?  You'd always get a similar system of today in the end, because the system doesn't make the people, it's the people who make the system.  The breaking factor in this matter is the fact that "human nature" is a direct response to one's childhood: most children live in a forced-hiearchy retard-ethics microcosm, and learn to accept the same in the macrocosm.

Thus, the game of anarchy is won not through abolishing government, but to get everyone else to become disillusioned with the concept; this occurs when mankind is ready to treat children as though they were regular humans.  So, if it's anarchy one fears, they should treat their kids as horribly as possible, and ensure their neighbors do too: 100% success rate of achieving a totalitarian state or your kids' childhoods back guaranteed.

So, if you missed it: the basis of your argument is that anarchism always resorts back to our current system thus making it pointless; your argument is invalidated due to the fact that human behavior is not static: ergo, the current system is always the system the people want, and the system of tomorrow, whether monarchy or anarchy, always involves different people with different wants, just as the systems of the past reflected these alternate desires.  There is no such thing as an oppressed society, for there is never a government whose citizenry does not accept as just, except the one that's on its way out (hint hint.)

[deisik]

If I understood correctly, your point was that in current Democracy, the big fish already rule. I answered that, even so, they have much less power than they would have in an anarchic society, that you seem to be defending.

If you write that the power vacuum would end by some group taking power, well, that is feudalism

But I'm really missing your point on how technology will save us from feudalism.

It is rather simple why technology will save us from feudalism, and why the group taking power will ultimately end up where we are now, despite how far from it their desires are at the start, and that will happen pretty fast (provided their leaders are rational, but otherwise they wouldn't grab power in the first place). I've been talking about this two or three times already in this thread...

To see why we won't descend into feudalism (at least, for a long time), it is necessary to understand why we are not in feudalism right now and don't have slavery (well, we have but why we do actually confirms why we don't have it everywhere, lol). It is not that people changed since ancient times or some moral nonsense they might tell you. The reason is quite simple and evident. Feudalism and slavery are just not economically effective at the present level of technological development compared to capitalism, so, as you may guess, if we stay at this level, there will be no slavery or feudalism...

In short, the very greed and egoism of those in power would dictate them to ban slavery and switch from feudalism to capitalism!

[Trading]

Sorry, but I have to disagree: as long as technology can't replace human work completely, as technology develops, productivity increases, and as this happens, slavery would be even more cost saving.

It's not by chance that industries go to where labor cost is cheaper.

For instance, "invention of the cotton gin in 1793 gave slavery a new life in the United States": http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0131_030203_jubilee2_2.html

The only reason slavery ended was moral. And it was because of this that wars, international pressure or revolutions were necessary to end it.

But I accept that you argue that it was thanks to economic prosperity that some influential people had the time and inclination to start to think in moral terms.

[deisik]

Sorry, but I have to disagree: as long as technology can't replace human work completely, as technology develops, productivity increases, and as this happens, slavery would be even more cost saving.

It's not by chance that industries go to where labor cost is cheaper.

For instance, "invention of the cotton gin in 1793 gave slavery a new life in the United States": http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0131_030203_jubilee2_2.html

The only reason slavery ended was moral. And it was because of this that wars, international pressure or revolutions were necessary to end it.

But I accept that you argue that it was thanks to economic prosperity that some influential people had the time and inclination to start to think in moral terms.

Your answer only confirms my point (about slavery and moral). And I gave hint about that in my previous post where I said that we don't have slavery but where we do have, it throws light why we don't have it everywhere. Actually, slavery didn't end, and we can find it today where technology can't replace human work completely (according to your own words). Quite logical!

"Industries go to where labor cost is cheaper". Perfect! Just where modern slavery is... And what about morality of the big guys who rule those industries ("pecunia non olet")?

[Trading]

I think you changed your point and are now admitting that slavery is still economic sound, even today; so it wasn't economic reasons that ended it.

(as you see, I'm not ignoring you, even if sometimes you are too much nationalist and could recheck some of your arguments)

[deisik]

I think you changed your point and are now admitting that slavery is still economic sound, even today; so it wasn't economic reasons that ended it.

I was talking about technological advances and development that put an end to slavery in most places by making slavery economically uncompetitive (if you tried to substitute machine work with manual labor). You must have misread or misunderstood me...

[Trading]

Alright, but I still think that slavery didn't end, anywhere, for economic reasons. On the contrary, it ended when it would be even more economic important, because productivity was increasing thanks to technology.

[deisik]

On the contrary, it ended when it would be even more economic important, because productivity was increasing thanks to technology.

I don't get what you mean. Please, explain...

[Trading]

A slave is as important as the amount of goods/services he can produce.

So, as technology develops, productivity increases, therefore, a slave working with technology will have higher production.

As long as human labor is necessary, even to control robots, enslaving persons will make economic sense, because you will be saving probable high paid wages, since their productivity is high.

Slavery would rend much more income in the XX century, than in the XIX or XVIII centuries. And as you stated correctly, there is still slavery; because it makes even more economic sense today.

It ended for moral reasons.